U. V. Bakre, J.—Heard Ms. Monteiro, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. By order dated 12.2.2015, it was made clear to both the parties that the revision application shall be heard finally at the stage of admission itself.

3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel for the parties waive service of notice after admission. Heard finally.

4. By this revision application, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.1.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Panaji in Criminal Appeal No. 34/2014 and the judgment and order dated 15.3.2014 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panaji in Criminal Case No. 800/OA2007A.

5. The respondent No. 1 was the complainant in the said Criminal Case, whereas the petitioner was the accused therein. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Criminal case.

6. The complainant had filed the said case against the accused for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act, for short). Case of the complainant was as follows: The accused had borrowed Rs.22,500 from the compl